Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 906 posts

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#241

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

trention wrote: post #215
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they shouldn't if its outside working time, but they can and should fire you for being an asshat at work. Also, sounds like you think all 'woke activists' everywhere are always destructive. Which is an interesting take. At what point does someone cross the line to become an inherently destructive 'woke' person?

When they do one or more of the following: a) call/protest for firing people for said outside-of-work activities b) protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way c) protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies d) protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities commi…

I have question, because some of these would result in 'woke activists' on the right as well as the left.

> protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way

There are conservative politicians, florida in particular, that have passed legislation banning CRT and gender studies. Is this not a restriction of free speech?

Toby Price was fired for reading a popular children's book to children. Was this not a form of censorship?

> protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies

Does this mean that that discrimination based on race/gender be allowed or not allowed? Should bakers in an open market be permitted to say no to gay wedding cakes? Should banks be able to say no to non-white loan applicants?

> protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates)

Does uneven enforcement count as a factor? White suburban teens smoke pot (in states where its still illegal) at rates the same as non-white urban teens, but enforcement is highly disprortionate. So what's the solution to that?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#242

Post by jknoepfler »

aaplok wrote: post #182
yathaid wrote: post #112

"Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable." Can someone ELI5 what is this conflict between truth and social justice Haidt refers to?

The key quote is this: "most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity." In other words a researcher studying a topic unrelated to diversity will need to lie by claiming that there is a link.

"Our lab specializes in developing hypergraph analysis techniques with applications in cybersecurity. The success of these techniques will force threat actors to innovate in order to survive. As more diverse organizations are more innovative [1][5][26] and threat actors are rational and well-informed [9][10], we expect our efforts to encourage threat actors to become more diverse as more effective cybersecurity techniques pressure them to adapt and innovate.

As threat actors account for a non-trivial fraction of global economic activity [6], we expect our research to play an active role in the co-creation of a more inclusive and diverse lifeworld for the people of earth."

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#243

Post by nathanaldensr »

HyperSane wrote: post #29
busterarm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in fact what the book How to be Anti-Racist prescibes that you do. Part of the thesis of that book is that you are a racist if you treat people as individuals. To be Anti-Racist, you must treat people as part of their collective and then treat them well or badly based on membership of that collective in the name of equity. Thus whites and asians must be treated poorly because of their race and other minoritie…

Well that is just utterly vile.

They like that it's vile; that's the point for them. The power, the influence, and the authoritarian ability to control people's lives and, eventually, kill them (in my opinion), is what they crave.

Do not underestimate these people and how insane they are.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#244

Post by kiba »

tomp wrote: post #187
xg15 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".

No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people , which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/ woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc...…

Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism.

After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#245

Post by memish »

fareesh wrote: post #223

This is now firmly in religious territory. Is there much of a difference between this and halal/kosher certification?

We have laws for separation of church and state, they should be applied to this as any other. This is a religion.

It's the same as any religious group trying to impose their morality and beliefs on everyone else. To be a good person use the correct words and correct ideas as defined by us, the good people. If you disagree you are a bad person. Sinful, evil.

How can you disagree with the Holy Words, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity? You're either with us or against us. Sign here on the dotted line to confirm membership.

http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#246

Post by topaz0 »

canadiantim wrote: post #217
concordDance wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically if your research is considered bad for the dominant DEI narratives you're going to be in for a bad time. E.g. if your research gets the "wrong" results regarding police shootings then anyone who defends your research will have to resign: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resignation.html?m=1 And anything regarding differences in crime numbers or IQ? Forget it.

Anyone else find it unsettling that the acronym the social justice crowd settled on was DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equality)?

I've never seen it ordered that way before reading the reactionary comments in this comment section.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#247

Post by krapp »

rhaksw wrote: post #228
bluejekyll wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is possible to have an open and civil debate with them? Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what the…

>"That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it.""Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it."

I'm not aware of any group intending to overthrow a government or otherwise do harm which was allowed to recruit and spread their propaganda as aggressively and freely as possible, and which was thwarted in their aims by nothing more than civil discourse. I don't know what experience he believes to be contrary to that classic argument, but that of the Nazis and Communists ain't it.

It certainly doesn't seem to work with modern propaganda or conspiracy theory. I'm certain QAnon and anti-vaxxers have been presented with arguments contrary to their claims, and those of white supremacists and anti-semites have been litigated for a century or more, and yet not only do they persist, but are experiencing a modern renaissance.

Show me an example where this proposition that "letting them all talk" is the best way to prevent organized violence and mayhem at scale. I can raise you book burnings and gulags and death camps galore.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#248

Post by 1MachineElf »

bluejekyll wrote: post #221
rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

Quoted post unavailable.

>When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is it possible to have an open and civil debate with them?

In the US, there is not one group trying to do that, but a multitude of groups, some who are in power and some who are not, most of whom deny that they are trying to do what you charge them with.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#249

Post by orf »

canadiantim wrote: post #217
concordDance wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically if your research is considered bad for the dominant DEI narratives you're going to be in for a bad time. E.g. if your research gets the "wrong" results regarding police shootings then anyone who defends your research will have to resign: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resignation.html?m=1 And anything regarding differences in crime numbers or IQ? Forget it.

Anyone else find it unsettling that the acronym the social justice crowd settled on was DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equality)?

No, because the acronym is DEI…

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#250

Post by whythre »

bluejekyll wrote: post #238
rhaksw wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is possible to have an open and civil debate with them? Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what the…

There is no nuance in this debate. Roger made those statements in 1982. The only access to broad public announcement was via TV, controlled by private companies for the most part. Today platforms have the same choices about what to air or not. Free Speech is also about not forcing people to say things they do not want, it is also about not forcing platforms to broadcast lies. These are not the same thing.

That is a lot of fancy words in favor of suppression.
Post reply on HN